I don't read the article as being critical of the U.S. or wolfy:
"The issue of whether the West would attack terrorism under NATO's flag was largely symbolic. The U.S. in any case would have provided most of the manpower and money. But France, Germany and other European countries felt spurned and bewildered by Washington's refusal to take them up on their offer.
Mr. Wolfowitz says any officials who felt that way misread his position. At the time, he adds, the U.S. "didn't have any notion what kind of military forces we needed" for a possible war in Afghanistan, "nor any notion that NATO as an alliance was prepared to commit to something as ambitious as Afghanistan." Mr. Wolfowitz also says that last December, he presented to NATO a detailed proposal for how it could help with a possible war against Iraq. "But what we feared in September '01 is precisely what happened: The French blocked collective action."
Once again: The French blocked collective action
I don't read the article as being critical of the U.S. or wolfy: You're right, it isn't. Instead, it's a "He Said, She Said" kind of report. That's alright, the WSJ wants to show its journalistic independence.
I think that mistakes have been made on the U.S. side. Most importantly, I suspect that the Administration did not sufficiently offer to take French and Russian commercial interests (i.e., pending oil exploration contracts) into account.
This war, after all, happens to be also about oil -- but on all sides including the French and Russians.
However, it doesn't change the fact that Chirac is bidding to become the world's principal opponent of the U.S., and expects to be rewarded handsomely with Arab oil money, while the stupid f---ing clueless Germans are along for the ride.
I'm sorry. I am so upset right now, I feel ready to go to the Elysée palace, wait for ChiraQ to step out, and punch him into the nose, HARD.
(Rest of message self-censored.)